STGOD! OOC Thread.

[Hadrianvs]

One was Napoleon. He showed up on the scene in Iberia and re-constituted what was left of the Roman army with provincial (including Turcian) auxilliaries, and contrived to shatter the Spanish invasion forces in a series of fast campaigns in Spring and Summer of 1798 that eventually culminated in a march on Madrid.

As I pointed out, the capital is more likely to be Lisbon. Madrid wasn't the capital of Spain until Filipo II moved the court there because it was pretty much exactly in the centre of his Iberian domains. His father Carlos I (V in Austria) favoured Seville, and every monarch beforehand had the capital in Toledo, mostly because Toledo is an utter bitch to besiege. So if you want "march on [important city in central Spain]", it would be Toledo. While Madrid was hardly a podunk town until the capital was moved there, it was of secondary importance.

In these eras there was no such law. The general consensus was a three mile "national waters" limit (determined literally by cannon shot range I believe) and the rest of the sea properly being "free", but certain powers (Britain!) continued to assert their own rights on the high seas that included seizing other nations' shipping if it was suspected of providing supplies to any nations Britain was at war with, and Britain tended to apply a very loose definition to the concept of "contraband".

I believe that by 1930 the 3 nautical mile limit was superceded by a 12 nautical mile limit. Though IIRC one of the US Presidents in the early 20th century (Wilson?) moved America's waters to the edge of the continental shelf.

[Steve]

Um, no, I believe that came later. 12 mile wasn't even formally codified until the Laws of the Sea agreements were put into play. Some countries may have claimed such but it was rather new.

[General Havoc]

Yeah, that makes sense. I stated above that Napoleon was one of the two things that saved Rome from catastrophe. The other was the failure of Spain's attack to co-incide with France and Germany's. Had the French/Germans invaded in 1796 instead of 1804, it likely would not have mattered what heroics Napoleon contrived to perform. My sense is that the Spanish decided they could go it alone, and attempted to do so, rather foolishly.

Anyway, Rome's position vis-a-vis the Med is obviously going to meet with resistance on the part of the other interested parties to the sea, and that's just something Rome has to live with. The Hungarians, for instance, have nowhere to deploy their fleet except in tributary seas of the Med. Most of Spain's Med ports are actually in Roman hands, but until Rome took over Gibraltar, they no doubt used it as a major base, as Rome does now. Like I said, to Rome it's a matter of policy, not law. Other people are gonna try and get into the Med. Depending on the circumstances, Rome will either let it go, or not.

[The Cleric]

I'd imagine that commercial shipping isn't badly restricted? What about military forces leaving the med from shipbuilding ports?

[Hotfoot]

Wow, flashbacks to Machiavelli's "The Art of War".

[Screwball]

Sorry that I've been completely inactive, but the powers that be decided that it was a great idea to actually start doing something about my application to the RN just before Christmas (as opposed to three months ago), so I've had more important things to worry about.

I was intending to get more involved at the end of this week, since my Admiralty Interview Board was today and tomorrow, but because of the snow that's pretty much shut down the Navy in Portsmouth, that was canceled (I spent six hours on trains today, plus another three hours in stations trying to get home. :/), so I've not really got much free time to devote to all the various online activities that I might like to.

Rather than try to stumble on with the minimum or less-than-minimum number of posts, since I know I'm unlikely to make the requirement, I think I should bow out now before things really get underway. Sorry about this.

[frigidmagi]

Aw, I have to say I am really sorry to see you go Screwball. But I understand how these things work and can't blame you. I wish you best of luck before the board and in the RN. My hope is that you will at least keep visiting the board.

[Steve]

I have a small paperback copy of The Prince which includes some of Machiavelli's Discourses. Pretty good altogether.

[Hotfoot]

Well, here's a shot of me hip deep in the Art of War:


That diplomacy and intelligence class was one hell of a trip.

[The Cleric]

I hadn't really intended to offer troops you know; it was more of musing out loud :P. I don't have enough forces in the area for an inland offensive anyway.

[Hadrianvs]

Updated my OOB, now had a bit of information on government and general force deployments.

I was tempted to pile my forces near the borders, for optimum defence, but decided to go for realism.

[Steve]

I almost got Machiavelli's Art of War once. Ended up buying other stuff.

I do have Clausewitz's On War but, well, combining German philosophical writing and a lack of proper editing (Clausewitz died before he finished it, it was published virtually unedited) resulted in a tome that can be... challenging... to absorb.

I do have the Griffiths translation of Sun-Tzu's Art of War. And I have Mahan's Influence of Sea Power.

[Hadrianvs]

http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar_.htm

Free copy of Machiavelli's The Art of War

While it's a decent book, Machiavelli was not as gifted a tactician as he was a strategist, and at that he was not as gifted a military strategist as he was a political strategist.

[General Havoc]

I'd imagine that commercial shipping isn't badly restricted? What about military forces leaving the med from shipbuilding ports?

Policy is that commercial shipping is more or less left alone unless there's a particularly good reason why it should not be (and it had better be a really good reason, because it's a guaranteed international incident). The suppression of the Barbary Pirates was one of the reasons Rome historically extended her control into Algeria and Tunisia, and the "security of the waters" is still one of the cited reasons given for Roman pre-dominance in the area (take it for what it is). Unless something is seriously afoot, the Romans will not bother commercial ships, though they do have military forces scattered around the Med (as you can see from my deployments), partly for Search & Rescue or High Seas assistance should a ship run into trouble.

As to military craft, the Romans are pragmatic enough to appreciate that a certain level of military stuff is going to be coming and going. They mostly just post the odd ship to watch from afar. Should a significant deployment be in the works however (and the definition of "significant" is somewhat mutable, in tense times it could be a single warship or troop transport), the Romans may take more active steps. These can include close surveillance by a fleet task force or even interdiction with threat-of-force. Rome is hyper-sensitive to people playing around in her Sea, and those who wish to do so better have a damn good explanation for why, and have a reason prepared for why the Romans should acquiesce to such a thing (even if that reason is simply "Because I brought battleships, bitch").

Any nation who proposes to send large forces through the Med, even if destined for other parts, would probably do well to at least warn Rome upfront of their intentions and destinations, such that no mis-understandings lead to unfortunate incidents. If, for instance, Cleric, you intend to send re-enforcements to the Sudan or Horn of Africa via the Med (which admittedly is the shortest route), then it would be best to let the Romans know, unless you have some reason for wishing that they do not.

[frigidmagi]

And now we just need Klavo to post.

[Hadrianvs]

And now we just need Klavo to post.

Word from Klavo is that he writes best during crunch time, so don't move the deadline again.

[frigidmagi]

We aren't.

[Hotfoot]

I have edited and corrected my troop deployments in my OOB, and since I will be generally without internet access until Sunday night, in case things happen before then, here's the sequence of events for the rest of April:

Diplomatic talks with Mexico and Pacifica
Mobilization of my reserves unless Mexico backs down before then

Nothing major, but since I can't monitor and respond to posts until I get back from the woods, I figured I'd just put that out there.

[Steve]

On the issue of diplomats getting caught in a nation their country has declared war on, I believe international law provides for them to be returned safely via neutral party. In this case, you'd either find some liner from Europe visiting Vera Cruz that they'd be put on or, if need be, take them by train/air to Pacifica, from which they'd return home.

Same thing for the VPOTUS.

Now, that's only for diplomatically accredited persons IIRC, individual US citizens in Mexico or Mexicans in the US would be liable to detainment, though an exchange of detainees by third party could be arranged (alternatively, the Red Cross or any similar organization would provide services of mail and such for the detainees to remain in touch with those at home.)

[Hadrianvs]

Windsept, "El Presidente" means "the President", that phrase is only used when refering to the chief executive in the third person. To his face it would be "Señor Presidente" (Mr. Pres), "Mi Presidente" (My Pres), or "Su Exellencia" (Your Exellency); depending on how deferential people must be when speaking to him.

[Hotfoot]

International law? That's a laugh. There is really no such thing in this era, that's already been well established.

[Hadrianvs]

International law? That's a laugh. There is really no such thing in this era, that's already been well established.

There may be no international law as such, but there probably is unwritten custom, which is enforced by simple reciprocation. I expect most governments will treat prisoners of war well for the simple reason that they would like the enemy to be nice to their own prisoners. Similarly, diplomats abroad will possibly be returned in exchange for one's own diplomats.

[rhoenix]

Windsept, "El Presidente" means "the President", that phrase is only used when refering to the chief executive in the third person. To his face it would be "Señor Presidente" (Mr. Pres), "Mi Presidente" (My Pres), or "Su Exellencia" (Your Exellency); depending on how deferential people must be when speaking to him.

Good catch - you have my thanks.

[Steve]

Actually IIRC the first international treaties regarding the rights of diplomats and treatment of prisoners were signed in the first decade of the 20th Century.

I'm wrong, the Congress of Vienna in 1815 codified the protection of diplomats. Said protections have been further elaborated upon up to the current Vienna Convention from 1964.

[Charon]

Actually IIRC the first international treaties regarding the rights of diplomats and treatment of prisoners were signed in the first decade of the 20th Century.

I'm wrong, the Congress of Vienna in 1815 codified the protection of diplomats. Said protections have been further elaborated upon up to the current Vienna Convention from 1964.

Ok, assuming this world had one as well (which isn't that unlikely), it wouldn't be hard to imagine that there were a lot of nations outside Europe that did not sign that agreement, either because they did not exist or they at that point in time simply weren't worth consideration to have to sign something like that.

Of course, your original statement that for the most part nations have an understanding on how to treat diplomats is definitely something I would agree to.